ORDER 1. Revisionist/defendant No.1 has filed this revision against the order dated 26.8.2016 passed by the Court of IIIrd Civil Judge, Class-II, Guna, whereby an application under Order 7 rule 11 read with section 151 of CPC has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts leading to the present civil revision are that plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction wherein he has sought relief that he be declared as Bhoomiswami and possessor of the land contained in Survey No.25 measuring 0.658 hectare situated at Patwari Halka No.74 at village Nonakhedi, Tahsil Guna, District Guna, and further relief that persons causing obstruction in agricultural activities be restrained from illegal activities and defendant No.1 be stopped from carrying out illegal construction. It was also prayed that permanent injunction be issued against defendant No.1 in interfering in the possession of the land belonging to the plaintiff. 3. An application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC was filed by defendant No.1, which is a Cooperative Housing Society, seeking dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground that plaintiff has not made compliance of section 94 of the MP Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act of 1960'). According to the defendant/revisionist, since defendant is a Cooperative Housing Society registered under the provisions of the Act of 1960, therefore, no suit could have been instituted against the society without giving notice in writing to the Registrar as is required under section 94 and thus the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Respondent No.1 has submitted that he has filed a suit seeking declaration in regard to the land of his ownership and has sought further injunction against defendant No. 1 from interfering in the possession of the land owned and possessed by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is to be examined that whether as per the provisions contained in section 94 of the Act of 1960, notice is required or not. 5. Section 94 of the Act of 1960 reads as under :- “94. Therefore, it is to be examined that whether as per the provisions contained in section 94 of the Act of 1960, notice is required or not. 5. Section 94 of the Act of 1960 reads as under :- “94. Notice necessary in suits.- No suit shall be instituted against a society or any of its officers in respect of any act touching the constitution, management or business of the society until the expiration of two months-next after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims, and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left ” 6. The issue which is to be decided in the present case is whether the plaint allegation deals with any act touching the constitution, management or business of the society. 7. In the present case, revisionist has not filed copy of the bye-laws so to demonstrate that what is the business of the society, but as the name suggests the revisionist is a Co-operative Housing Society. In regard to Cooperative Housing Society provisions contained in section 48(2) are important which says that subject to sub-section (1), the management of every society shall vest in a Board of Directors constituted in accordance with this Act or rules made thereunder or bye-laws of the society and it shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed respectively by the Act or rules made thereunder or bye-laws of the society. It is also clear that the Cooperative Housing Society will essentially deal with requirement of housing of its members and is required to carry out development of the land allotted to or purchased by the Cooperative Housing Society for the benefit of its members. 8. It is also clear that the Cooperative Housing Society will essentially deal with requirement of housing of its members and is required to carry out development of the land allotted to or purchased by the Cooperative Housing Society for the benefit of its members. 8. It is apparent from the application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC which was filed by the revisionist and enclosed along with this revision as Annexure A-4 that it is mentioned in the application that plaintiff has sought relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the interest of the society, but society has not filed any document to show that land contained in Survey No.25 measuring 0.658 hectares as claimed by the plaintiff is the land purchased by them for the development of plots or other ancillary activities in relation to aims and objects of the society. It has also come on record that earlier civil revision No.35/2015 was filed by the same revisionist and vide order dated 29.2.2016 the revision petition was remitted back to the trial Court for fresh decision on the application filed under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC by the petitioner after properly taking into consideration the averments made in the plaint regarding the dispute and the functioning of the society. Now in terms of the said remand order, the impugned order dated 26.8.2016 has been passed rejecting the application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Saphik Alias Sahid Khan and another v. Nandlal Arora and others, as reported in 2014(1) MPHT 164, in which it has been held that in absence of notice being left at the office of Registrar of Co-operative Society, the civil Court was not having any authority or jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Similarly, reliance has been placed in the case of Parivahan Nigam Karmachari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore v. Navjyoti Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, as reported in 2010 RN 452 , wherein civil suit for permanent injunction against the society without prior notice was held to be not maintainable and case was remanded for decision according to law. In this case, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Amalgamated Electricity Co. In this case, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Amalgamated Electricity Co. (Belgaum) Ltd. v. Municipal Committee, Ajmer, as reported in AIR 1969 SC 227 , wherein it has been held that before section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code can be relied on in any suit against a public officer, it must be shown that it is a suit in respect of an 'act' purporting to be done by him in his official capacity. In view of the provisions of the General Clauses Act, the expression 'act' also includes illegal omissions. Therefore, if the suit does not relate to any 'act' or 'illegal omission' purporting to be done by a public officer in his official capacity, section 80 will not have any application. In the case of The Krishi Mattu Ksheera Utpadaka Vividhoddesha Sahkari Sangh Niyamit Bakkal and another v. Sohanlal, as reported in AIR 1993 Karnataka 20, it has been held that if the act is not related to constitution, management or business of the society, issuance of notice is not mandatory. The full Bench decision of Karnataka High Court has also relied the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Amalgamated Electricity Co. (Belgaum) Ltd. (supra), and has held that notice under section 125 (which appears to be analogous provision to section 94 of the Act of 1960) is mandatory where the act in question is with reference to the society and the act or omission complained of relates to constitution, management or business of the society. 10. In the present case, the learned trial Court has considered this aspect and has categorically recorded a finding that plaintiff has not sought any relief in the nature of acts performed by a cooperative society touching constitution, management or business of the society as is defined under section 94 of the Act of 1960 but has only prayed for a declaration and permanent injunction that defendant/society be stopped from encroaching upon the land of the plaintiff. Therefore, the issue of encroachment since not covered under the constitution, management or business of the society, notice under section 94 is not mandatory. Therefore, the issue of encroachment since not covered under the constitution, management or business of the society, notice under section 94 is not mandatory. It has further relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Kedarnath Neekhra and others v. Suprabhat Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha, as reported in 2014 RN 378 = 2014(4) MPLJ 192 , in which this Court has held that while deciding an application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC only the statements made in the plaint should be referred to. It has also been held that plaint seeking permanent injunction to restrain defendants not to encroach upon suit plot and raise construction thereupon also cannot be said to be touching business of society. 11. In the present case the judgments referred to by the revisionist/petitioner in the case of Saphik Alias Sahid Khan and another and Parivahan Nigam Karmachari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore (supra), are different on facts. In fact the judgment of Full Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of The Krishi Mattu Ksheera Utpadaka Vividhoddesha Sahkari Sangh Niyamit Bakkal and another (supra), is relevant inasmuch as it has taken into consideration and distinguished the requirement of law where notice to the Registrar becomes mandatory. In fact, the purpose of notice under section 94 of the Act of 1960 can be deduced from the fact that Registrar being custodian of the co-operative society registered within his jurisdiction, if there is any challenge to the constitution, management or business of the society, then it should be brought to the notice of the Registrar so that he may take remedial action and issue directions to the society for which he is empowered under the Act to take measures in terms of the provisions contained in section 48 (2) of the Act of 1960 to perform its duties as may be imposed respectively by the Act or rules made thereunder or bye-laws of the society. Certainly, the encroachment is not an issue within the parameters of constitution, management or business of the society, and therefore, no notice was required under section 94 of the Act of 1960. Certainly, the encroachment is not an issue within the parameters of constitution, management or business of the society, and therefore, no notice was required under section 94 of the Act of 1960. In this regard, judgment of this Court in the case of Secretary, M.P. Rajya Hath Kargha Bunker Samiti (Maryadit), Gopalbagh, Jabalpur and another v. Kapoorchand and another, as reported in 1977 (I) MPWN 17 is also important inasmuch as encroachment on the land of a third party is not the business of the society. 12. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, trial Court has not committed any illegality or arbitrariness in dismissing the application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC inasmuch as matter of encroachment is not covered under section 94 of the Act of 1960 and does not call for notice under section 94 of the Act of 1960. Thus, the civil revision fails and is dismissed. No order as to cost.